1 - 3
In response to:

Standing Up Against Wealth-Shaming

Mark GA Wrote: Jan 29, 2014 5:54 PM
Sure if by "moving money around", you mean investing in good ideas that propel civilization forward.
In response to:

Standing Up Against Wealth-Shaming

Mark GA Wrote: Jan 29, 2014 5:50 PM
Those at the top of the ladder didn't create the problems at the bottom. We know what the predictors of poverty are. Poor Education, teen pregnancy, fatherless homes, these are big issues that cause poverty. The left would rather farm the poor for votes, than do anything to lift up these people into free thinking self sufficient individuals. Every now and then they give lip service to the problem, but real change might mean those votes that they harvest would dry up.
In response to:

Re-state of the Union

Mark GA Wrote: Jan 29, 2014 5:12 PM
I would like to know why you think that the number of "abusers" will be the same. Prohibition caused Cirrhosis death rates to drop from 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 to 10.7 in 1929. Furthermore, admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928. It appears that alcohol prohibition, was a huge success in curtailing the number of abusers. Surely the abuse rate in drugs that are illegal will increase in proportion to their addictive nature. I would expect drug abuse for narcotics, methamphetamine, and crack cocaine to sky rocket.
1 - 3